Originally Posted by Hymes

Good afternoon, GFY! I'm postingf or the first time, so....

There were a few long threads late last week about the Free Speech Coalition and 2257, to which I would have posted if I hadn?t been in very long meetings and then at home with the cable down, a holiday gift from Adelphia. My loss, but Connor Young more than held his own, and I doubt I could have improved upon his comments.

However? let me add a few thoughts of my own before I officially start tomorrow.

First, I am very excited to be jumping into the much-needed position of Communications Director, working for a great new Executive Director and a dedicated and talented Board, which also with some new members. I have so much to do it?s almost overwhelming, but I am optimistic about what we can achieve, and look forward to getting started.

My first official request is to implore those of you are so inclined to hit me up and let me know what you think the FSC can and should do to ensure the survival of this industry, and how you would like to help. While I begin work with a full slate of immediate and long-term goals, I think it?s important that anyone, especially on the Internet side, who has something constructive to add, take the time to communicate with its most effective and organized trade organization, and why not through me?

If you don?t have my numbers, please hit me up at [email protected] or [email protected], or call the offices at 818-348-9373. Office Manager Neva Chevalier ([email protected]) handles official volunteer coordination, but I am very interested in hearing what you have to say, and will respond with ICQ, AIM and cell numbers galore to everyone except unhelpful flamers. (I especially request KB to get in touch with me, as I envision him helping in great ways.)

Second, as a brief but important aside, I hope it?s clear that the FSC is not the enemy; the creators of these new regulations, and certainly the regs themselves, are. It is they, not we, that have brought us to a point where armed agents of Homeland Security, wielding the 2257 regs in one hand and a copy of the Patriot Act in the other, could very likely be making some extremely intimidating visits to adult companies within a month. So the question is, do you feel lucky, punk, or do you want to do something about it?

No matter what other legal challenges are undertaken, I obviously think it?s important for everyone to support the Free Speech Coalition, in the long term and short term, by especially by supporting what will be a significant and multi-pronged legal challenge by experienced lawyers who have won before, and I expect that over time everyone will step up and do just that.

It?s important, because:

- A full-frontal assault like these regs, so arrogant in their unconstitutional hostility to our fundamental rights, and so impossible to comply with, demands your attention!

- The selfless members of Board of the FSC, who receive no compensation for the significant time they spend working on your behalf, deserve your support!

- The brilliant attorneys who are already hard at work preparing challenges to these regulations - for a fraction of what they could make in private practice - absolutely warrant everyone?s gratitude and support!

As a last matter, no one from the FSC has said or meant to suggest that someone should become a member of the FSC in order to be protected under an injunction that does not even exist. While it is a fact that under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure only parties to litigation are covered by an injunction, it has also been amply explained by now that while technical limitations apply, the practical result of some injunctions is that no one is prosecuted while the injunction is in effect, as has happened with COPA.

At any rate, the FSC press release of May 25, 2005 makes clear that ?being a member of the Free Speech Coalition does not mean that compliance is unnecessary. Every producer of actually sexually explicit conduct is covered by the existing regulations and the new regulations (which take effect June 23, 2005).?

In short, there are a hundred great reasons to become a member of FSC, but impermanent and impossible to define protections that may never materialize is not one of them.

Peace, and see you on the battle lines,

Tom Hymes
Communications Director
Free Speech Coalition
[email protected]

Originally Posted by dcortez

That's great to hear!

I do appreciate that Peer Review is a Pandora's Box, but I don't think there is a better industry than ours to address the challenge of distilling/defining a model which balances 'Freedom of Expression' with 'Accountability for Expression' (visa vi economic harm to the industry, lost opportunities/access to markets, undermining accomplishments in cultural acceptance, etc.).

The scope of what I was proposing may (understandably) step outside of the core mandate of FSC. The difficulty in achieving a tolerant (at the very least) mainstream perception of the adult industry is compounded when the extreme niche producers get 'mixed in' with the less mysogonistic producers and the public sees us as the worst and most extreme examples available.

This is definitely a pardox. I don't want to limit anyone's ability to produce any creative works they choose (aside from the obvious exploitive stuff), but I also don't want my efforts and investments in my own 'textures' of erotica and adult entertainment to be materially undermined by those (albiet legal) working at the other end of the scale. How do we acheive this?

I suppose separate professional associations could contain the guidelines and standards to establish and maintain their own repective positions in culture and the marketplace (eg. Soft Erotic Entertainment Association, Extreme Free For All Group, etc) without infringing on any freedoms of expression.

I believe the accounting world has several classes of accounting professionals - maybe adult could be handled the same way, so those who want to penetrate the mainstream world more effectively won't be hampered by those who scare mainstreamers.

Or, do you think that an ideal success for FSC would be for mainstreamers to not be scared of anything?

-Dino

Originally Posted by TheLegacy

finally some sanity and clear answers rather than hearing armchair lawyers giving mis information. IM glad that webmaster paradise has supported and will continue to support Free Speech Coalition. Keep up the good work.

Originally Posted by Hymes

As a last matter, no one from the FSC has said or meant to suggest that someone should become a member of the FSC in order to be protected under an injunction that does not even exist. While it is a fact that under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure only parties to litigation are covered by an injunction, it has also been amply explained by now that while technical limitations apply, the practical result of some injunctions is that no one is prosecuted while the injunction is in effect, as has happened with COPA.

Peace, and see you on the battle lines,

Tom Hymes
Communications Director
Free Speech Coalition
[email protected]